ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Jan. 17, 2013  The across-the-board spending cuts that would result if a sequestration mechanism in budget law kicks in March 1 will hollow out U.S. military forces faster than most Americans imagine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said during a recent news briefing that if sequestration happens, the American military will be less prepared in months and unprepared in a year.

During an interview today on his return trip from NATO meetings in Brussels, the general said the cuts would quickly bring about a new type of hollow force.

The chairman stressed that deployed and deploying service members will be exempted from the effects of a sequester. The United States will not send any service member overseas without the best preparation, equipment and supplies possible, he said.

This actually covers a great many people. Service members in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Kuwait, aboard ships at sea, and flying and supporting deployed aircraft will continue to have our unwavering support, Dempsey said. We have a moral obligation to make sure that they are ready and the next [unit] to deploy is ready.

If sequestration is triggered March 1 -- six months into fiscal 2013 -- the department will have only six months to absorb those cuts, the chairman noted. So, if the deployed force is ready, and the next force to deploy is getting ready, theres not going to be any operations and training money left for the rest of the force, he said.

I see this, and I think back on what we ate in the field back in 1969, or what our sons and daughters are eating in Afghanistan today, even if it’s ‘ready-to-everything’. They don’t even give you the damned cigarettes any more.

Conservatives need to get it. The republican party is just set dressing for the marxist progressives and has been such since George Bush. They enable the statist not oppose them in trade for a few crumbs for their themselves and their friends.

3
posted on 01/20/2013 10:22:02 AM PST
by Breto
(Stranger in a strange land... where did America go?)

Where is the GOP leadership on this?
********
There is no GOP leadership. They are just the other side of the same coin and they are content with keeping their jobs. There was real leadership in the Tea Party but the GOP-e won out and stifled them.

As far defense cuts are concerned, if we stop the expensive and unproductive nation building we can save a lot right there. We have spent a fortune on contracts doing this and what benefits do we derive?

Sorry, but the DoD is loaded with fat and wastes money with the best of them. They need to get their haircut like everyone else. (Other agencies need limbs removed or to be extinguished totally, but the DoD can do with a significant haircut.)

We’re broke. We can’t afford this crap anymore. Get out of Afghanistan, get out of Europe, get out of Japan. Bring our people home, and let the rest of the world start paying their share of the load.

It would help if Conservatives didn’t lie to protect their special interests, of which the military budget is just one.

EVERYTHING needs to be cut. But just because one thing isn’t cut that deserves to be cut doesn’t mean we need to lie about everything else. Then again this is the la-la land of lying Democrats and lying Republicans.

I have no problem getting out of paying for the defense of other countries and pumping U.S. dollars into their economies. But bring our people home to what, rampant unemployment? This is exactly what the democrats want, to throw the country into turmoil and dissent so they can ride to the rescue by removing and curtailing our liberties. They will tell us the only way to get back on track will be to give the government absolute control of our lives!

7
posted on 01/20/2013 10:43:43 AM PST
by Mastador1
(I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)

Sorry, but the DoD is loaded with fat and wastes money with the best of them. They need to get their haircut like everyone else. (Other agencies need limbs removed or to be extinguished totally, but the DoD can do with a significant haircut.)

How much of a haircut have they had already? Shouldn't our defense, one of the constitutional primary roles of the federal government, be based on a risk/threat assessment and the protection of our strategic national interests?

National Defense Spending Would Plummet Under Obama's Budget

President Obama's lean defense strategy would create a hollow force and exacerbate today's readiness crisis. Decreases in funding for the core defense program mean losing capabilities that are crucial for the military to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.

PERCENTAGE OF GDP

Since President Obama took office, more than 50 major weapons programs at a value of more than $300 billion were cut or delayed. On top of this, the Administration told the military to cut almost $600 billion more over the next 15 years. And thats before any cuts under the Budget Control Act take place.

According to the Weekly Standard, the GOP secretly agreed last year to gut the military in previous negotiations with Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

This being the case anyway, it is now even more imperative that the sequestration cuts are allowed to take effect. We know the military will be gutted bhack to 2007 funding levels, so let the rats welfare / vote buying scheme take a hit, too.

Sequestration Will Drastically Shrink the Military and Harm National Security

Secretary Panetta calculated that sequestration represents a reduction of nearly 20 percent in DOD funding over the next ten years. According to Secretary Panettas November 14 letter to Senators McCain and Graham, reductions at this level would mean:

 The smallest ground force since before World War II

 The smallest Navy since before World War I

 The smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force

 The smallest civilian workforce in the history of the Defense Department

Panetta continued in that letter to warn that sequestration would effectively eradicate an entire generation of military modernization, potentially including:

 Termination of the Joint Strike Fighter and next generation bomber

 Delay of the next generation ballistic missile submarine and cuts to our existing sub fleet

 Cancellation of the littoral combat ship

 Elimination of all modernization of ground combat vehicles and Army helicopters

Despite over 350 base closings in five rounds of BRAC, sequestration could lead to another round of closures. Reductions under sequestration would put our military and national security at risk.

Systems can be as expensive as you want them, as with most DoD programs they are mismanaged and too expensive. Even so, isn’t $500Bn enough? Don’t tell me the systems affected, we’re talking about 1/2 a Trillion dollars here, each and every year, and you are seriously making a pitch that we are somehow vulnerable and need more?

the LCS (littoral combat ship) is an overpriced not very boondoggel with poor survivability. in fact most modern ships copuld not take the punishment ww2 us destroyers took.
the infantry GCV (ground combat vehicle) is a joke and looks like somethiing out of the nazi panzer design center in ‘45 and even lees effective.

as always training will be cut because the perfumed princes of the pentagon don’t make any money from it as opposed to their fancy overpriced weapons systems and post retirement consulting fees. notice they didn’t list cutting all flag officers by 60% which would be a good start.

15
posted on 01/20/2013 11:22:08 AM PST
by bravo whiskey
(People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.)

More than enough for what? When you start looking at how DOD spends its money, you can see how the choices will be very difficult. Personnel costs are more than a quarter. Then you have training and operations costs. And there is the long term procurement of major weapons systems to maintain the technological edge in the future. Once you start making major personnel cuts, it becomes very difficult to reconstitute the force. DOD has made a major investment in training. And if we fail to modernize our force, we will pay the price in the future.

Obama has already made major cuts in our military. Another $50 billion a year for a decade will hollow out the force. I believe our military leaders. And where will those savings go? To keep funding the welfare state including Obamacare.

We are having the classical fight of Guns vs Butter that occurs in declining powers and civilizations. Butter always wins because it has more constituents. Look what has happened in Europe. They are spending 1% or less on defense. They have lost the power to project power and defend their interests. The French can't even send its troops to Mali without our logistical support.

“Sorry, but the DoD is loaded with fat and wastes money with the best of them. They need to get their haircut like everyone else. (Other agencies need limbs removed or to be extinguished totally, but the DoD can do with a significant haircut.)

Were broke. We cant afford this crap anymore. Get out of Afghanistan, get out of Europe, get out of Japan. Bring our people home, and let the rest of the world start paying their share of the load.”

I totally agree with you. And we don’t need $8,000 hammers.

17
posted on 01/20/2013 11:27:36 AM PST
by Wisconsinlady
(The 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting-but protection from a tyrannical govt)

If we did not design our ships and planes to fight enemies who have Star Trek technologies which none of our closest potential adversaries have, we probably can afford more ships and planes. If we stop being a policeman in the world and try to use our superpower status in the world to remake the world into the US by force we probably would not be broke and can afford more planes and ships. The Cold War ended under Bush41 and the US had a chance for period of peace and recontruction. Instead we went about criticizing countries over human rights and interfere in civil wars that were none of our business. In the end it took many years to break the Soviet and Chinese alliance, but we manage to bring those two countries together in an alliance against us. Bush41 sort of understood that, Clinton neglected it and let DoD run strategy of everyone can be an enemy, Bush42 let the neocons make more enemies and at the same time bankrupt the US. Economic implosion, weariness of foreign wars lead to the election of Obama and reelection of Obama.

Whenever someone tells me "we're broke" however, I ask them: "If we are broke, then does that mean we should make significant cuts in Medicare and Social Security - now?"

I always get an answer that those programs are not "entitlements" (even though they fit the exact definition by law) and that people need to get "their money" out of it first.

All Social Security payments are funded by more borrowing and by payroll taxes on current workers. Period. There is no magic "vault" of money. Yes, politicians may have spent it and replaced it with IOUs. Welcome to the club.

We are now going to borrow about 2 Trillion more, and none of that money will take care of stopping sequestration. That would take a relative pittance ($80 Billion this year). But, entitlements just keep on a rolling along. All of the. SS and Medicare. Also Medicaid. Those 3 eat up the majority of the budget. Add welfare to the mix, and almost 70% of all Federal outlays are direct payments to individuals.

Thumbs up to that whole list. America has neither the inclination nor the stomach for either warfare in general, or being the world’s policeman in specific.

The U.S. is more than capable of defending ourselves and our interests against any and all comers for 500 billion dollars. What’s being lost is our global force projection capability and our garrisons of wealthy, industrial nations, and to that I say good riddance.

It’s time to pull the plug on the empire, and get back to being a republic.

22
posted on 01/20/2013 11:37:02 AM PST
by Steel Wolf
("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)

Shouldn't our defense, one of the constitutional primary roles of the federal government, be based on a risk/threat assessment and the protection of our strategic national interests?

Well said kabar.

To RFEngineer, the DoD has already been cut (in real dollars) by $450 Billion under Obama. Sequestration is $600 Billion on top of that, and even Panetta has said it will "devastate" the armed forces.

Yet, I don't see anyone's EBT card not producing the goodies.

This nation's priorities are 180 degrees out of phase. Entitlements are sapping our national will, our morality, and our economy. Yet, entitlements were "off the table" during the comically named 2011 Budget Control Act. They were "exempt" from the Super Committee because the Democrats didn't want to discuss them. Entitlement reform was briefly floated by the GOP during the fiscal cliff talks, and they quickly chickened out.

The LCS class consists of two variants, the Freedom variant and Independence variant - designed and built by two industry teams, respectively led by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works. These seaframes will be outfitted with reconfigurable payloads, called Mission Packages, which can be changed out quickly. Mission packages are supported by special detachments that will deploy manned and unmanned vehicles and sensors in support of mine, undersea and surface warfare missions.

as always training will be cut because the perfumed princes of the pentagon dont make any money from it as opposed to their fancy overpriced weapons systems and post retirement consulting fees. notice they didnt list cutting all flag officers by 60% which would be a good start.

A cynical view that questions the loyalty and patriotism of our military leadership. I don't take such a jaundiced view. And cutting the number of flag officers will not save a lot of money.

When I served in the Navy (1965-72) we had 600 ships and the Draft. We are now down well below three hundred ships. Our carrier force has been reduced by one. The operations tempo caused by two wars has taken its toll on equipment and personnel. There is no doubt that we can spend our defense money wiser and more efficiently and I would say the same thing about Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. If I were to set priorities, defense would be number one. Without it, everything else is at risk. And a weaker America will invite challenges to our national interests that will cost far more than the $50 billion we save from DOD.

Nice. Repeating outright lies and exaggerations from the main stream media now?

I have a better option.

Moderate reform to "the Big 3" - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to preserve the programs and stop our fiscal insanity. Stop ObamaCare (wait until that kicks in). And scale back all "giveaway" welfare programs such as Secion 8, TANF, and Food Stamps by 5% a year for next three years.

We are bleeding as a nation because of entitlements, not defense spending.

“To RFEngineer, the DoD has already been cut (in real dollars) by $450 Billion under Obama. Sequestration is $600 Billion on top of that, and even Panetta has said it will “devastate” the armed forces.”

That’s over 10 years, so they aren’t “real dollars” as you claim. It’s really 1/10th of what you claim, isn’t it? Let’s just have honesty here. You are doing the liberal thing - aggregating cuts over 10 years to imply that they are a single year number - which you know they are not.

Is $500Bn not enough? I don’t care what Panetta said. Is $500Bn enough for our national defense?

You can answer “yes or no” or you can not answer by answering in classic bureaucrat fashion, as you are right now.

We are having the classical fight of Guns vs Butter that occurs in declining powers and civilizations. Butter always wins because it has more constituents. Look what has happened in Europe. They are spending 1% or less on defense. They have lost the power to project power and defend their interests. The French can't even send its troops to Mali without our logistical support.

The parallels between the decline of America and the decline of the Roman empire are frightening....right down to our modern Bread (entitlements and welfare) and Circuses (sports and sick entertainment culture).

If we did not design our ships and planes to fight enemies who have Star Trek technologies which none of our closest potential adversaries have, we probably can afford more ships and planes.

LOL. That is not why we design our ships and planes. It is about having military superiority over any existing or future enemy. Superior ships and planes are force multipliers when it comes to dealing with an enemy who may have lots of troops like the Iraqis, but can't compete militarily. Smart bombs, cruise missiles, etc. mean we need less planes and ships--and fewer military personnel.

If we stop being a policeman in the world and try to use our superpower status in the world to remake the world into the US by force we probably would not be broke and can afford more planes and ships.

More Leftist propaganda. The US has strategic national interests and we need a national security capability to advance them.

The Cold War ended under Bush41 and the US had a chance for period of peace and recontruction. Instead we went about criticizing countries over human rights and interfere in civil wars that were none of our business.

The Soviet Union broke up, but the Cold War is not dead in terms of our relationship with Russia and China. In fact, China is increasing its military capabillities.

I have no problem in criticing countries over their human rights policies. We should continue doing it. I can tell you from firsthand experience that the Polish people appreciated Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire." It gave hope to everyone who languished in prisons for speaking out against tyranny.

Bush42 let the neocons make more enemies and at the same time bankrupt the US. Economic implosion, weariness of foreign wars lead to the election of Obama and reelection of Obama.

Dempsey is Ubama’s man, yet here he is bemoaning cuts to the military? ...The very cuts his boss, Ubama, and the Democrat party lust for? Sure. Another Ubama scumbag, Leon Panetta, was saying the same kinds of things not long ago. And he said them with a straight face.

How stupid do you have to be not to see through this game?

If you make the proposed military cuts sound draconian and “devastating”, etc., then the Republicans will HAVE to “negotiate” to save the military. Of course, IN RETURN for the Democrats agreeing to let the Republicans “save” the military , well... there better not be any real cuts to the Democrats’ welfare/moocher/vote-buying programs.

Thats over 10 years, so they arent real dollars as you claim. Its really 1/10th of what you claim, isnt it? Lets just have honesty here.

The DoD cut made that $450 Billion cut and has already paid dearly for it. Yes, the entire figure is a 10 year figure, and that is $45 Billion per year that the Dod coughed up. Name one other Federal agency that made that kind of real dollar cut? Taps foot.........

These were not "cuts in growth" - they ARE real dollar cuts. You want honesty? That is honesty. The military cut thousands of jobs, canceled many modernization programs, and cut force strength.

Sequestration is a ten year, $600 Billion evisceration on top of that $450 Billion.

You can spin this from here to next Sunday, but the baby does not get any less ugly.

I dont care what Panetta said.

Panetta is a Democrat, working for the worst, most leftist President in American history. Even Panetta could not stomach what Obama and Congress were doing. If you can't accept this fact, that's your problem.

$500Bn is a lot of money, by the way, dont you think?

Defense is about 18-20% of the Budget before the previous cuts. The DoD does not get that full amount, because the Defense budget is historically larded with pork that has nothing to do with Defense. This happens each and every year. Some AIDS research is in the DoD budget, on top of other garbage. Congress does this because they can get away with it. Factor in sequestration, and it goes down even more. Defense spending today is at historic lows in terms of GDP.

Under Bath House Barry, the DoD budget has shrunk even more than this chart projects. Soon, the DoD will approach about 2.8% GPD.

Is $500Bn not enough?

Lol! You keep repeating that. Try this on for size: during the January "Fiscal Cliff" deal the GOP gave away $200 Billion to the Democrats to extend (yet again!) unemployment benefits. That is ONE giveaway program out of all them that got full funding, sending checks to people to not work. For almost 2 year. And since 2008, we have spent almost 3/4 of a Trillion dollars paying people not work.

This debate is about our national soul. Our priorities, and our future.

Our military might is directly tied to our international standing and our economy. Fools never seem to be able to grasp this.

“Lol! You keep repeating that. Try this on for size: during the January “Fiscal Cliff” deal the GOP gave away $200 Billion to the Democrats to extend (yet again!) unemployment benefits. That is ONE giveaway program out of all them that got full funding,”

Another red herring. There is no opinion expressed over any other spending, if you wish to imply that I support wasteful spending of any kind, make the accusation, but I’m talking about the defense budget.

Is $500Bn enough for Defense?

“This debate is about our national soul. Our priorities, and our future.”

It’s also about spending of all kinds, our deficit, and many other things.

If you truly care about the defense of the country, and I don’t doubt that, you should figure out ways to defend the country on drastically less money than even $500Bn, because that all that we’ll be able to spend. I think its not only possible, but likely that we’ll have to.

But defending the Defense department bureaucracy and generic “sky is falling if we don’t get $X budget” is not the way it’s going to be.

How would we defend the US with a $100Bn annual budget, for instance is a question that the Defense dept should be able to answer. How about $50Bn? I’m not kidding. This is what we could be facing with the level of budget problems we have.

The solution is not to claim our “national soul” requires a greater than $500Bn defense budget.

The “national soul” calls for much more than what is in a budgetary spreadsheet. But that’s the rhetoric of defense budgets. Talk of “soul”, “patriotism” and other icons are meaningless when we don’t have the money.

I believe, and I’m a veteran, that it is possible to be a simple taxpayer that pays for this all and be a patriot, for instance. The bureaucrats like to monetize the flag and patriotism and turn it into a larger budget authority. They are despicable people who do that.

Anyway, I digress.

How would you defend America with $100Bn? If it’s too hard a problem, then we need better people in the Defense business, because right now if they can’t hack it with $500Bn they should all step aside and let people who actually care about America’s defense do it.

oh, another thing about your chart and your point about Defense spending as a % of GDP - if we took all wasteful government spending, resized our government at all levels, made drastic reductions in spending that would be required to balance our budget (and more to start paying it off) then our GDP would be much much smaller How about 40-50% smaller in the wake of the financial calamity that is before us?

it’s definitely possible. not even a $500Bn defense budget will survive that.

Moderate?? Stake, Gut, cut and burn those MF’ers, then salt the Earth so they can NEVER come back.

I’m constantly amazed that people still fight ‘for their $$’ in these UNCONSTITUTIONAL entitlements. Defense, at the least, IS one of the FEW things gov’t SHOULD BE DOING.

Pull ‘em outta every foreign country, shut down and demolish the bases and put them to work securing our OWN borders. R&D to make sure we have the latest/greatest and let the world police their own countries.

How would we defend the US with a $100Bn annual budget, for instance is a question that the Defense dept should be able to answer. How about $50Bn? Im not kidding.

Unbelievable.

I didn't realize I was debating someone who had such a tenuous grasp on reality.

Tell you what RFEengineer, let's just go all the way and make it three dollars and fifty cents for the entire Defense budget, and $800 Quadrillion (that's the figure that comes after a Trillion) for Entitlements.

Do you believe in the Bible? If you do, read toward the end (Revelation). War is coming on a global scale. I don't know where the US will be during all of that, but I guarantee you that we will not escape the global oppression and persecution that is heading this world's way. If the US military is operating on shoe strings, all our enemies will have to do is kick in the door.

“I didn’t realize I was debating someone who had such a tenuous grasp on reality.”

Ok, where does the money come from for >$500B defense budgets for the next 10 years? Then we’ll see who has the better grasp of reality - the fiscal reality with which we must deal.

“Tell you what RFEengineer, let’s just go all the way and make it three dollars and fifty cents for the entire Defense budget, and $800 Quadrillion (that’s the figure that comes after a Trillion) for Entitlements.”

More hyperbole. stick to the defense budget for now. is $500Bn enough?

” If the US military is operating on shoe strings, all our enemies will have to do is kick in the door.”

Still more hyperbole. Is $500Bn a “shoe string” budget figure? Will we be defenseless without ‘whatever DoD asks for’?

You are having a bureaucrats debate. You are savvy enough to know not to answer the $500Bn question in debate with me, but nonetheless it is a good question, that you won’t answer it is interesting, unless you are a DoD bureaucrat, in which case you know that you must repeat “the sky is falling” until the budget comes out.

At least you are willing to bound the DoD budget as being insufficient at $3.50, but that you, in true bureaucrat fashion, refuse to name “an upside” for Dod budgets.

Is $500Bn enough for Defense?...you should figure out ways to defend the country on drastically less money than even $500Bn, because that all that well be able to spend. I think its not only possible, but likely that well have to...How would you defend America with $100Bn? If its too hard a problem, then we need better people in the Defense business, because right now if they cant hack it with $500Bn they should all step aside and let people who actually care about Americas defense do it.

You seem to accept the fact that our defense budget number is something you set first and then try to tailor your force and mission to that number. Why? Shouldn't we assess what the present and potential threat might be, determine the capability of our present and potential adversaries, and then set priorities? You want us to do it ass backwards.

You also assume that the ever increasing entitlement program requirements will be met as our first priority. The biggest driivers of our budget are the entitlment and means tested welfare programs. They are growing faster than GDP and will continue to do so with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day for the next 20 years doubling our population over 65 by 2030 to one in five. And by that point there will be just two workers for every retiree. The entitlement programs and debt servicing costs are barely covered by the total revenue we take in thru taxes.

Do you realize that Medicare Part B and D premiums only cover 25% of the costs of those programs. The other 75% must be funded by the General Fund. In 2011, the GF had to pony up $222 billion. That number will continue to increase.

SS has been running in the red since 2010. The General Fund will have to cover the costs of redeeming the SSTF T-bills to make up the shortfall.

Note: See Primary Surplus line (which is negative, indicating a deficit)

Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBOs deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBOs figures predict that the payroll tax holiday will cost the governments general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the  tax holiday and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.

Actually, the costs were even more according to the 2012 Trustees Report. "A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted.">

The food stamp costs have now ballooned to $89 billion a year. Food stamps are one of nearly 80 means-tested federal welfare programs, including 17 for nutritional support. Collectively, these programs cost $700 billion annually, plus $200 billion in state contributions.

If you truly care about the defense of the country, and I dont doubt that, you should figure out ways to defend the country on drastically less money than even $500Bn,

It is a matter of priorities. Shouldn't we be figuring out ways to cut back "drastically" on the welfare state, which is the biggest driver of our debt and deficit and will consume the entire federal budget if not curbed. Isn't our national defense the paramount priority?

In April 2012, LTC Dooley,
a highly decorated combat veteran, was
publically condemned by General Martin
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and relieved of his teaching
assignment because of the negative way
Islam was portrayed in an elective course
entitled, Perspectives on Islam and
Islamic Radicalism.

“You seem to accept the fact that our defense budget number is something you set first and then try to tailor your force and mission to that number.”

Nope. But like any good bureaucrat guarding his budget, you seem to think that you have to strive for bigger budgets ad infinitum. You know darn well that “tailoring the force and mission” is a farce in defense budgets predicated on justifying the new system someone wants.

Those days are over, regardless of whether you and I agree or not.

“It is a matter of priorities. Shouldn’t we be figuring out ways to cut back “drastically” on the welfare state, which is the biggest driver of our debt and deficit and will consume the entire federal budget if not curbed. Isn’t our national defense the paramount priority? “

The point I make, that eludes you is that we have to cut back on EVERYTHING. I’m equally tough on other threads on social security/medicare, for instance. Start one, ping me to it, I’ll participate.

This thread is about the Defense budget. You refuse to admit that there can be an effective defense fielded for a “mere” $500Bn. You seem to buy into that number being one that represents one where “hollowing out” occurs.

If our bureaucrats in the DoD (or any other federal dept) didn’t use apocalyptic language, they might not get ever increasing budgets.

This salvo is not about protecting the United States, it’s about defending budgets. You know it better than most, that’s why you won’t get boxed in by my argument about $500B budget being “enough”. While that’s being a good loyal bureaucrat, it’s not being honest about the fiscal realities that face us. You even ridicule the very notion of drastically reduced budgets of the sort that would be required in an inevitable fiscal collapse of our finances (it IS inevitable) Who is separated from reality, you or me? I submit it’s you, but we can argue that, too.

Government and everything government does will forever change when we can’t borrow the money upon which all government spending depends, including Defense budgets.

We need to be able to respond to that likely scenario - and I have no doubt (and more top secret than anything else) we have budget plans within the DoD for just such an austere eventuality.

So is $500Bn a year enough to provide for the defense of the United States of America?

Sorry, I seem to have you two guys mixed up. But the point stands, and both of you seem equally intransigent about the fiscal realities that face us, and their impact on DoD budgets (and everything else government does)

and both of you seem equally intransigent about the fiscal realities that face us

As kabar has clearly pointed out, with charts, facts, and graphs - entitlement spending is what is driving us into the ground, and your point would have merit if a vast decrease in the Defense budget was mirrored by the same fiscal realities for entitlements. And yet, the exact opposite situation is occurring and entitlements are "off the table?"

How will these "fiscal realities" you speak of occur that magically exempt entitlements from the same reality?

Moreover, it really isn't a "Guns vs. Butter" debate. That axiom means we are actually producing something with the "Butter" debate. We aren't producing anything other than ATM Direct Deposits to millions upon millions of Americans with borrowed money.

There will always be unjust punishment in this world. In the very beginning, Cain murdered his brother Abel out of jealousy. Job suffered unjustly. So did Paul. So did Peter. So did Christ Himself. The fact that there is injustice in the world stands because we live in a fallen world. And one thing I can guarantee you, with 100% certainty, is that there will be more war, disasters, famine, and terrorism that will affect this nation.

The single institution that has answered that call time and time again is the US military. It is also the single institution that is getting raped by both political parties.

Most of the scheduled, automatic spending cuts are against the bureaucrats who keep an eye on us to stop us from producing, those (government teachers) who label small children as terrorists and the like. Defense increases will be properly approved again by the House when needed, probably soon. Cut the many useless programs first, any way that we can.

Or by all means, spend it all more quickly, and get us to much smaller government by way of default. One way or the other is fine with real Americans, who are descended for many generations from early America. We don’t care for those cities that leech recirculated debt solely from government and look like foreign countries (except to those who yearn for the likes of Benito).

47
posted on 01/20/2013 4:31:58 PM PST
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)

"And one thing I can guarantee you, with 100% certainty, is that there will be more war, disasters, famine, and terrorism that will affect this nation."

Under the circumstances, with our country becoming too much like southwestern Europe, the drought doesn't surprise me. Another year or more of it wouldn't surprise me at all. Descendants of the likes of Amalek might perpetually be surprised, though.

49
posted on 01/20/2013 4:38:20 PM PST
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)

Nope. But like any good bureaucrat guarding his budget, you seem to think that you have to strive for bigger budgets ad infinitum. You know darn well that tailoring the force and mission is a farce in defense budgets predicated on justifying the new system someone wants.

DOD is getting a reduced budget prior to sequestration. They were the only agency that suffered a real reduction in budget as part of Clinton's peace dividend.

I don't know darn well that "tailoring the force and mission is a farce in defense budgets predicated on justifying the new system someone wants." You sound like Obama.

I do know that it takes more than a decade from conception to operational use for a weapons system. We are using systems that were designed 10 to 20 years ago. And many of our planes and ships are even older.

The point I make, that eludes you is that we have to cut back on EVERYTHING. Im equally tough on other threads on social security/medicare, for instance. Start one, ping me to it, Ill participate

The point is that we won't cut back on those entitlement and means tested welfare programs. First, an aging population will add 10,000 people a day for the next 20 years to the entitlement programs, i.e., there will be twice as many people 65 or older in 2030 as there is today. So costs are going to go up regardless of what efficiencies we may try to achieve. It is just demography.

Second, medical/health costs are going up faster than inflation and GDP growth. Our technology is far better, but it costs more. And add to this more elderly with more medical needs.

Third, there is no political will to rein in the costs of entitlements. The politicians are responding to what the people want. That is, they want all the benefits the welfare state has to offer, but they don't want to pay for it in terms of taxes or a cut in benefits. One third of current retirees depend upon SS as their sole source of income. Two thirds of SS receipients have SS as more than one-half of their income. And most Americans are not putting away money for their retirement.

Finally, we are in the process of implenting a huge new entitlement program, Obamacare, that will add 18 million to the Medicaid rolls and no doubt, cost much more than projected--just like Medicare which costs nine times what it was estimated to cost.

What we are seeing is the Guns versu Butter struggle as this nation declines. Any reductions in defense spending will be plowed back into the welfare state which has an insatiable appetite just to keep treading water. Let's at least be honest and say that we are playing a zero sum game with defense going against the welfare state.

If our bureaucrats in the DoD (or any other federal dept) didnt use apocalyptic language, they might not get ever increasing budgets.

Disagree. My 36 years experience in the federal government doesn't support that assertion.

You even ridicule the very notion of drastically reduced budgets of the sort that would be required in an inevitable fiscal collapse of our finances (it IS inevitable) Who is separated from reality, you or me? I submit its you, but we can argue that, too.

If we have a financial collapse, defense will be the last thing to be cut. We will need armed forces to address the resulting civil disorder and riots as we can no longer pay the welfare benefits and have to reduce SS and federal pensions. Greece is the perfect example of how people will react. They will take to the streets and demand the stuff government promised them.

So is $500Bn a year enough to provide for the defense of the United States of America?

Silly question. I would hate to find out the answer if it isn't. I have already provided you the right way to approach our defense budget needs. It doesn't start by providing a fixed amount and saying stay within it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.